Die riesengrosse Online-Community von Herrn Zuckerberg (Facebook) startete vor wenigen Jahren mit einer kleinen Idee!
Ganz nach dem Motto: "Beginne klein und denke groß!"
Und das tat Herr Zuckerberg auch: „Er holte sich die richtigen Partner mit an Bord! Diese investierten insgesamt gerade mal 11.000 US-Dollar und der Rest ist Geschichte“
Stop! Wissen Sie überhaupt, was aus diesen 11.000 US-Dollar geworden ist?
„Nach nur 4 Jahren ist aus dieser kleinen Anfangssumme ein Netzwerk von 500.000.000 Fans entstanden. Dies ist eine Marketingmacht, woraus aus 11.000 US-Dollar => 175.000.000 US Dollar wurden!
Und das alles nur, weil Jemand seine Freunde auf Facebook eingeladen hat und diese wiederum ihre Freunde u.s.w.! Mehr war nicht nötig, um dieses riesige Internetimperium aufzubauen, das Milliarden abwirft.
http://www.sitetalk.com/?sponsor=derob2b
Posts mit dem Label Pakistan werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label Pakistan werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Donnerstag, 10. November 2011
Mittwoch, 19. Oktober 2011
Pakistan warnt die USA vor Einmarsch
Planen die USA eine Operation gegen Terroristen in Pakistan? Hochrangige Militärs des Landes beobachten einen massiven Aufmarsch der Amerikaner an der Grenze zu Afghanistan - und machen im Gegenzug verbal mobil. Washington bekäme es mit einer "Atommacht" zu tun.
Hamburg/Islamabad - Alarmstimmung im pakistanischen Armeehauptquartier in Rawalpindi: "Wir nehmen zur Kenntnis, dass die USA ihre Truppen an der Grenze zu unserem Land in Afghanistan verstärken", sagte ein Militärsprecher SPIEGEL ONLINE am Mittwoch. Es werde schweres Geschütz aufgefahren, Kampfhubschrauber bezögen Stellung, Hunderte von amerikanischen und afghanischen Soldaten seien in der Region stationiert.
Nach Meinung von Beobachtern deutet vieles darauf hin, dass die USA einen Angriff auf das terroristische Haqqani-Netzwerk planen, das sich in der pakistanischen Krisenregion Waziristan versteckt. In den vergangenen Tagen hatte Washington bereits seine Drohnenangriffe in dieser Gegend verstärkt. In Miranshah, Verwaltungshauptstadt von Nord-Waziristan, sorgten Meldungen über die amerikanische Truppenverstärkung für Panik. Pakistanische Fernsehsender berichteten, Menschen würden sich auf eine Flucht vorbereiten.
Pakistans Armeechef Parvez Ashfaq Kayani erklärte vor Mitgliedern des Verteidigungsausschusses, er halte einen Einmarsch von US-Truppen zwar für "unwahrscheinlich". Sollten die USA einen solchen Schritt aber erwägen, sollten sie sich ihn "zehnmal überlegen", mahnte Kayani. Zwar sagte er nicht, wie Pakistan in einem solchen Fall reagieren würde, jedoch erinnerte er die USA daran, "dass Pakistan eine Atommacht ist und nicht mit Irak und Afghanistan verglichen werden kann".
Einem Parlamentarier zufolge, der an der Sitzung mit Kayani teilnahm, sind sich die Militärs einig, dass ein Angriff auf Pakistan das Scheitern der USA in Afghanistan vertuschen solle. "Bevor die US-Truppen Vietnam verließen, wissend, dass sie den Krieg verloren hatten, griffen sie auch Laos und Kambodscha an", sagte ein General SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Es wäre fatal, wenn sie jetzt, vor dem bevorstehenden Abzug aus Afghanistan, Pakistan angreifen würden."
Die USA haben das Haqqani-Netzwerk im Visier, das nach Erkenntnissen Washingtons für einen Großteil der Angriffe auf US-Soldaten in Afghanistan verantwortlich sein soll. Dessen Kämpfer werden angeblich in Pakistan ausgebildet und hätten auf pakistanischem Territorium einen "sicheren Hafen". Washington hat in den vergangenen Monaten mehrfach von Islamabad verlangt, militärisch gegen das Netzwerk vorzugehen.
Im September warf US-Generalstabschef Mike Mullen Pakistans Geheimdienst ISI sogar vor, das Haqqani-Netzwerk zu nutzen, um eigene Interessen in Afghanistan durchzusetzen. Mitte September war die US-Botschaft in Kabul angegriffen worden - vermutlich von Haqqani-Mitgliedern.
Pakistan geht nur zögerlich gegen die Haqqani-Truppe vor
Kayani sagte jetzt nach Angaben von Parlamentariern, er habe den USA deutlich gemacht, dass Pakistan selbst über den Zeitpunkt eines militärischen Vorgehens in Nord-Waziristan entscheiden werde. Druck aus den USA sei "nicht hilfreich". "Wir haben ihnen [den USA] gesagt, dass das Problem in Afghanistan liegt, nicht in Pakistan", zitierte ein Abgeordneter Kayani. "Wenn mich jemand überzeugen kann, dass es gut läuft, wenn wir in Nord-Waziristan einschreiten, werde ich sofort dafür sorgen, dass wir militärisch aktiv werden", sagte Kayani weiter. Pakistan habe "langfristige Interessen in Afghanistan". Diese dürften nicht geopfert werden zugunsten "kurzfristiger Interessen".
Inwieweit die Vorwürfe aus den USA stimmen, dass das Haqqani-Netzwerk heimlich von den pakistanischen Streitkräften unterstützt wird, lässt sich nicht überprüfen. Innerhalb der US-Regierung aber wächst die Ungeduld, dass Pakistan nichts gegen die Militanten auf pakistanischem Boden tut. Die Lage in Afghanistan ist instabil, der Druck auf US-Präsident Barack Obama wächst, wenigstens einen kleinen Erfolg in der Region vorzuweisen.
Manche seiner Berater drängen daher zu der militärischen Aktion - so, wie die USA schon mit ihrem Schlag gegen Osama Bin Laden im pakistanischen Abbottabad im Mai dieses Jahres erfolgreich waren. Gleichwohl dürften viele in Washington vor einem militärischen Vorgehen ohne Einverständnis der pakistanischen Regierung zurückschrecken - längst hat sich Pakistan mit China und Saudi-Arabien starke Verbündete gesucht.
Die pakistanische Regierung geht tatsächlich nur zögerlich gegen die Mitglieder der Haqqani-Truppe vor, weil sie befürchtet, dass die sich im Falle eines Krieges in Nord-Waziristan mit Terroranschlägen im ganzen Land rächen würden. Bislang hält sich Haqqani mit Gewalt auf pakistanischem Boden zurück. "Die USA sollten auch einmal versuchen, unsere Position zu verstehen", sagte ein pakistanischer General SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Welches Interesse hat Pakistan daran, weiteren Terror im eigenen Land anzufachen?"
Aus afghanischen Regierungskreisen hieß es dagegen, die US-Truppenverstärkung entlang der Grenze sei mit Pakistan abgesprochen. "Kämpfer des Haqqani-Netzwerks sollen auf dem Weg von Pakistan nach Afghanistan abgefangen und getötet werden", erläuterte ein afghanischer Beamter aus dem Verteidigungsministerium den Plan.
In der ostafghanischen Provinz Khost würden amerikanische und afghanische Soldaten Häuser durchsuchen, in mehreren Orten bestehe derzeit eine Ausgangssperre. Afghanistans Verteidigungsminister Abdul Rahim Wardak hatte am Dienstag bestätigt, dass Nato und afghanische Streitkräfte eine neue Offensive gegen das Haqqani-Netzwerk gestartet hätten. Das pakistanische Armeehauptquartier in Rawalpindi wollte diese Version nicht bestätigen.
Quelle: www.spiegel.de
Hamburg/Islamabad - Alarmstimmung im pakistanischen Armeehauptquartier in Rawalpindi: "Wir nehmen zur Kenntnis, dass die USA ihre Truppen an der Grenze zu unserem Land in Afghanistan verstärken", sagte ein Militärsprecher SPIEGEL ONLINE am Mittwoch. Es werde schweres Geschütz aufgefahren, Kampfhubschrauber bezögen Stellung, Hunderte von amerikanischen und afghanischen Soldaten seien in der Region stationiert.
Nach Meinung von Beobachtern deutet vieles darauf hin, dass die USA einen Angriff auf das terroristische Haqqani-Netzwerk planen, das sich in der pakistanischen Krisenregion Waziristan versteckt. In den vergangenen Tagen hatte Washington bereits seine Drohnenangriffe in dieser Gegend verstärkt. In Miranshah, Verwaltungshauptstadt von Nord-Waziristan, sorgten Meldungen über die amerikanische Truppenverstärkung für Panik. Pakistanische Fernsehsender berichteten, Menschen würden sich auf eine Flucht vorbereiten.
Pakistans Armeechef Parvez Ashfaq Kayani erklärte vor Mitgliedern des Verteidigungsausschusses, er halte einen Einmarsch von US-Truppen zwar für "unwahrscheinlich". Sollten die USA einen solchen Schritt aber erwägen, sollten sie sich ihn "zehnmal überlegen", mahnte Kayani. Zwar sagte er nicht, wie Pakistan in einem solchen Fall reagieren würde, jedoch erinnerte er die USA daran, "dass Pakistan eine Atommacht ist und nicht mit Irak und Afghanistan verglichen werden kann".
Einem Parlamentarier zufolge, der an der Sitzung mit Kayani teilnahm, sind sich die Militärs einig, dass ein Angriff auf Pakistan das Scheitern der USA in Afghanistan vertuschen solle. "Bevor die US-Truppen Vietnam verließen, wissend, dass sie den Krieg verloren hatten, griffen sie auch Laos und Kambodscha an", sagte ein General SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Es wäre fatal, wenn sie jetzt, vor dem bevorstehenden Abzug aus Afghanistan, Pakistan angreifen würden."
Die USA haben das Haqqani-Netzwerk im Visier, das nach Erkenntnissen Washingtons für einen Großteil der Angriffe auf US-Soldaten in Afghanistan verantwortlich sein soll. Dessen Kämpfer werden angeblich in Pakistan ausgebildet und hätten auf pakistanischem Territorium einen "sicheren Hafen". Washington hat in den vergangenen Monaten mehrfach von Islamabad verlangt, militärisch gegen das Netzwerk vorzugehen.
Im September warf US-Generalstabschef Mike Mullen Pakistans Geheimdienst ISI sogar vor, das Haqqani-Netzwerk zu nutzen, um eigene Interessen in Afghanistan durchzusetzen. Mitte September war die US-Botschaft in Kabul angegriffen worden - vermutlich von Haqqani-Mitgliedern.
Pakistan geht nur zögerlich gegen die Haqqani-Truppe vor
Kayani sagte jetzt nach Angaben von Parlamentariern, er habe den USA deutlich gemacht, dass Pakistan selbst über den Zeitpunkt eines militärischen Vorgehens in Nord-Waziristan entscheiden werde. Druck aus den USA sei "nicht hilfreich". "Wir haben ihnen [den USA] gesagt, dass das Problem in Afghanistan liegt, nicht in Pakistan", zitierte ein Abgeordneter Kayani. "Wenn mich jemand überzeugen kann, dass es gut läuft, wenn wir in Nord-Waziristan einschreiten, werde ich sofort dafür sorgen, dass wir militärisch aktiv werden", sagte Kayani weiter. Pakistan habe "langfristige Interessen in Afghanistan". Diese dürften nicht geopfert werden zugunsten "kurzfristiger Interessen".
Inwieweit die Vorwürfe aus den USA stimmen, dass das Haqqani-Netzwerk heimlich von den pakistanischen Streitkräften unterstützt wird, lässt sich nicht überprüfen. Innerhalb der US-Regierung aber wächst die Ungeduld, dass Pakistan nichts gegen die Militanten auf pakistanischem Boden tut. Die Lage in Afghanistan ist instabil, der Druck auf US-Präsident Barack Obama wächst, wenigstens einen kleinen Erfolg in der Region vorzuweisen.
Manche seiner Berater drängen daher zu der militärischen Aktion - so, wie die USA schon mit ihrem Schlag gegen Osama Bin Laden im pakistanischen Abbottabad im Mai dieses Jahres erfolgreich waren. Gleichwohl dürften viele in Washington vor einem militärischen Vorgehen ohne Einverständnis der pakistanischen Regierung zurückschrecken - längst hat sich Pakistan mit China und Saudi-Arabien starke Verbündete gesucht.
Die pakistanische Regierung geht tatsächlich nur zögerlich gegen die Mitglieder der Haqqani-Truppe vor, weil sie befürchtet, dass die sich im Falle eines Krieges in Nord-Waziristan mit Terroranschlägen im ganzen Land rächen würden. Bislang hält sich Haqqani mit Gewalt auf pakistanischem Boden zurück. "Die USA sollten auch einmal versuchen, unsere Position zu verstehen", sagte ein pakistanischer General SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Welches Interesse hat Pakistan daran, weiteren Terror im eigenen Land anzufachen?"
Aus afghanischen Regierungskreisen hieß es dagegen, die US-Truppenverstärkung entlang der Grenze sei mit Pakistan abgesprochen. "Kämpfer des Haqqani-Netzwerks sollen auf dem Weg von Pakistan nach Afghanistan abgefangen und getötet werden", erläuterte ein afghanischer Beamter aus dem Verteidigungsministerium den Plan.
In der ostafghanischen Provinz Khost würden amerikanische und afghanische Soldaten Häuser durchsuchen, in mehreren Orten bestehe derzeit eine Ausgangssperre. Afghanistans Verteidigungsminister Abdul Rahim Wardak hatte am Dienstag bestätigt, dass Nato und afghanische Streitkräfte eine neue Offensive gegen das Haqqani-Netzwerk gestartet hätten. Das pakistanische Armeehauptquartier in Rawalpindi wollte diese Version nicht bestätigen.
Quelle: www.spiegel.de
Montag, 11. Juli 2011
USA frieren Teil der Militärhilfe an Pakistan ein
Die USA wollen 40 Prozent ihrer Militärhilfe für Pakistan einfrieren. Laut dem Stabschef des Weißen Hauses, William Daley, geht es um etwa 800 Millionen Dollar. Er bestätigte damit einen Bericht der Zeitung "New York Times". Insgesamt gewähren die USA den pakistanischen Sicherheitsbehörden Hilfen in Höhe von zwei Milliarden Dollar.
Daley begründete im US-Fernsehsender ABC den Beschluss der Regierung von Präsident Barack Obama mit den "komplizierten Beziehungen zu Pakistan". Pakistan sei zwar ein wichtiger Partner im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus und sei selber häufig Opfer terroristischer Attacken, sagte der Stabschef in der Sendung "This Week". "Aber sie haben ein paar Schritte gemacht, die uns veranlassen von uns an ihr Militär gewährte Hilfe auf Eis zu legen."
Seit Mai kühlen die Beziehungen merklich ab
Seit der Tötung des Al-Kaida-Gründers Osama bin Laden durch ein US-Spezialteam in der pakistanischen Garnisonsstadt Abbottabad Anfang Mai haben sich die Beziehungen zwischen den USA und Pakistan merklich abgekühlt. Ranghohe US-Vertreter hatten einigen Mitgliedern des pakistanischen Geheimdienstes ISI und des Militärs vorgeworfen, Bin Laden und andere Terrorverdächtige gedeckt zu haben. Später nahm US-Generalstabschef Mike Mullen die Vorwürfe zurück. Die pakistanische Seite beschuldigt die USA dagegen, bei der Jagd mit Drohnen auf mutmaßliche Terroristen im afghanisch-pakistanischen Grenzgebiet auch immer wieder Zivilisten getötet zu haben.
Mitte Juni hatte die US-Botschaft in Islamabad bekannt gegeben, dass auf Bitte Pakistans hin die Zahl der amerikanischen Militärberater in dem Land reduziert worden sei. Medienberichten zufolge soll es sich um mindestens 100 Spezialisten des US-Auslandsgeheimdienstes CIA gehandelt haben, welche Starts und Landungen der US-Drohnen auf einer Luftwaffenbasis überwachten. Zudem hatte Pakistans Verteidigungsminister Chaudrey Mukhtar den USA den Einsatz der raketenbewaffneten Predator-und Reaper-Drohnen in der Provinz Ost Waziristan untersagt.
Quelle: tagesschau.de
Daley begründete im US-Fernsehsender ABC den Beschluss der Regierung von Präsident Barack Obama mit den "komplizierten Beziehungen zu Pakistan". Pakistan sei zwar ein wichtiger Partner im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus und sei selber häufig Opfer terroristischer Attacken, sagte der Stabschef in der Sendung "This Week". "Aber sie haben ein paar Schritte gemacht, die uns veranlassen von uns an ihr Militär gewährte Hilfe auf Eis zu legen."
Obama verhandelt über Haushaltskürzungen
Daley zeigte sich jedoch zuversichtlich, dass die USA und Pakistan die Unstimmigkeiten beseitigen könnten. "Aber bis dahin werden wir einen Teil des Geldes, dass die Steuerzahler gegeben, zurückhalten", fuhr er fort. Damit deutete er auch an, dass der Schritt eventuell in Zusammenhang mit den schwierigen Haushaltsverhandlungen steht, die Obama derzeit mit dem US-Kongress führt. Der Präsident halte an seinem Ziel fest, den Etat insgesamt um fast vier Billionen Dollar zu kürzen, stellte Daley in derselben Sendung klar.Seit Mai kühlen die Beziehungen merklich ab
Seit der Tötung des Al-Kaida-Gründers Osama bin Laden durch ein US-Spezialteam in der pakistanischen Garnisonsstadt Abbottabad Anfang Mai haben sich die Beziehungen zwischen den USA und Pakistan merklich abgekühlt. Ranghohe US-Vertreter hatten einigen Mitgliedern des pakistanischen Geheimdienstes ISI und des Militärs vorgeworfen, Bin Laden und andere Terrorverdächtige gedeckt zu haben. Später nahm US-Generalstabschef Mike Mullen die Vorwürfe zurück. Die pakistanische Seite beschuldigt die USA dagegen, bei der Jagd mit Drohnen auf mutmaßliche Terroristen im afghanisch-pakistanischen Grenzgebiet auch immer wieder Zivilisten getötet zu haben.
Mitte Juni hatte die US-Botschaft in Islamabad bekannt gegeben, dass auf Bitte Pakistans hin die Zahl der amerikanischen Militärberater in dem Land reduziert worden sei. Medienberichten zufolge soll es sich um mindestens 100 Spezialisten des US-Auslandsgeheimdienstes CIA gehandelt haben, welche Starts und Landungen der US-Drohnen auf einer Luftwaffenbasis überwachten. Zudem hatte Pakistans Verteidigungsminister Chaudrey Mukhtar den USA den Einsatz der raketenbewaffneten Predator-und Reaper-Drohnen in der Provinz Ost Waziristan untersagt.
Quelle: tagesschau.de
Samstag, 14. März 2009
US missiles kill 24 in Pakistan
US missiles fired from a Predator drone aircraft killed at least 24 people in Pakistan's northwest tribal area of Kurram Thursday evening. The American military attack came in the midst of an intense political crisis that is calling into question the stability of the Pakistani government.
According to unnamed US and Pakistani security officials cited by major wire services, the target of the attack was a "training center" run by a local Taliban commander, and the victims, whose bodies local villagers dug from the rubble, were "mostly militants."
At least 50 others were wounded in the attacks, which involved four or five missiles that struck a residential building. It was the second such missile attack in the Kurram tribal region in less than a month. An attack on February 16 killed 31 people.
The attacks are part of a major escalation of the US military intervention in both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan as part of the Obama administration's emerging strategy for the region.
The administration is expected to formally unveil this strategy as early as next week. According to Pentagon and White House officials who spoke to the Associated Press, the plan will place particular emphasis on Pakistan, demanding that it take greater military action to suppress anti-US occupation forces in the tribal areas.
Even before the issuing of the report, Obama has ordered an additional 17,000 US troops into Afghanistan in response to a growing insurgency that has deprived the occupation forces and the US-backed regime of President Hamid Karzai of control over roughly three-quarters of the country. This is the first installment on an escalation that is expected to double the number of US troops in the country to 60,000.
The inevitable result of such a buildup of US military forces will be a dramatic increase in the deaths of Afghan civilians, which already rose 40 percent in 2008 over the previous year.
On Thursday, US Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus and Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, delivered a closed-door briefing to leading members of the US Senate in what was apparently part of the preparation for the public presentation of the new strategy for waging the war that was first launched by the administration of George W. Bush nearly seven and a half years ago.
In an appearance on PBS Television's "Charlie Rose Show," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the strategy review would focus on "the safe haven in Pakistan, making sure that Afghanistan doesn't provide a capability in the long run or an environment in which Al Qaeda could return or the Taliban could return."
The Associated Press quoted an administration official as saying that "one thrust was that Pakistan needed to recognize that combating extremism was in its own interest as well as that of US and NATO fighting forces across Afghanistan."
A similar note was sounded by the top civilian leader of NATO Friday. Speaking in Warsaw, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stressed the daunting challenge posed by the growing insurgency to the US-led NATO occupation forces. "We cannot make it all by ourselves," he said.
He insisted that Pakistan had to do more to suppress resistance in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the mountainous Pakistani-Afghan border.
"For that we need Pakistan because the same people who want to destabilize the FATA in Pakistan are the guys who are coming over the border and making life for Polish and Dutch and Canadian and Danes and Americans miserable in Afghanistan," he said.
Within Afghanistan itself, Obama and other administration officials have floated the idea that Washington will try to bribe sections of the insurgency into collaborating with the occupation along the lines of the strategy employed in Iraq to win over Sunni militia elements who were paid by the US military. US officials have spoken of opening up talks with elements of the Taliban.
Taliban representatives have responded that they have no interest in any talks until all foreign forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan.
The British daily Telegraph, citing US official sources, reported that the proposal for such talks is linked to plans to dramatically escalate military violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The newspaper reported: "...officials consulted on the plans said the military conflict would be raised to new levels of intensity before talks could begin. ‘There will be talks but the Taliban are going to experience a lot of pain first, on both sides of the border,' said one senior Western diplomat."
Both the Afghan and Pakistani governments have repeatedly complained that US air attacks and the civilian casualties they inflict in both countries have only served to increase support for the anti-occupation insurgencies while destabilizing the political situation in Pakistan. There are ample indications, however, that such protests from the Pakistani government are for public consumption, aimed at assuaging popular anger over the air strikes while the Pakistani state provides direct support for these attacks, including allowing the US to launch its drones from a base located inside Pakistan.
The latest missile attack is particularly provocative, given the escalating political crisis in Pakistan. Washington is signaling all sides that it will act with impunity in carrying out military actions on Pakistani soil while demanding that domestic political conflicts be subordinated to the US "war on terror."
US officials have intervened aggressively in a bid to force an end to the showdown between President Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and his political rival Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML).
Obama's special envoy Holbrooke, the US Ambassador in Islamabad Anne Patterson and British Foreign Secretary David Milliband held conference calls and meetings with Zardari and Sharif demanding a speedy resolution of the power struggle between the two bourgeois parties for fear that its continuation could lead to the government's collapse.
According to the Pakistani daily Dawn: "Representatives of the US and the UK governments told President Zardari that political instability in Pakistan weakens their efforts on the war on terror and thus political unrest should be overcome, otherwise it will help militants to reorganise and emerge with more force to meet their agenda. The US and the UK leaders were of the view that political mayhem in Pakistan is creating a vacuum in the country leaving the militants unchecked."
In particular, Washington and London are anxious to reach some kind of power-sharing settlement between the two parties before the scheduled March 16 arrival in Islamabad of a "Long March" organized by Pakistani lawyers and supported by the PML. It is feared that the march, called to demand the reinstatement of judges who were removed from the bench under a 2007 emergency rule decreed by former military strongman Gen. Pervez Musharraf, could produce violent confrontations.
Already, security forces have arrested at least 1,000 lawyers and politicians, while many demonstrators have been beaten. Late Thursday, security forces blockaded the main highway out of Karachi—a principal supply route for US occupation forces in Afghanistan—in an attempt to prevent protesters from leaving the city for Islamabad.
In an another repressive act, the Dubai-based Pakistani news television channel Geo News was forced off the air after cable operators were threatened by the government and told to halt their broadcasts of the channel, according to Pakistani press reports.
One year after Zardari came into office it is becoming increasingly evident that he is employing much the same methods as his predecessor, the military ruler Musharraf. As Pakistan's News International commented in its lead editorial Thursday: "Even in Pakistan's troubled history of democratic governments, it is rare to find the kind of open fascism we are seeing today." Zardari, it continued, had abandoned the "pretense of democratic practice" and reacted like "many bloodthirsty dictators."
Ultimately, the adoption of such methods is a function not merely of the political squabble between the PPP and the PML, but of the political, economic and social agenda of Pakistan's capitalist state, which is deeply unpopular with the broad masses of workers, peasants and the poor.
In an ominous development, the Indian-based news service IANS reported that the chief of the Pakistani army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, delivered Zardari an "internationally backed" 24-hour deadline to bring an end to the political crisis.
The deadline was "backed by Washington, London and the army establishment," according to the Pakistani Internet news site "A Pakistan News." The site went on to say that Zardari will "be asked to go" by the army and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani "if he does not accept a new deal hatched by them in consultation with foreign powers."
In his interview with PBS, US Admiral Mullen said the Pentagon was closely following the political confrontation in Pakistan and cited concerns that it could "possibly generate a crisis, which may cause actions to be taken on the part of the military."
Mullen praised his Pakistani counterpart, Gen. Kayani, declaring him "committed to a civilian government" and insisting that "the last thing in the world he wants to do... is take over as President Musharraf did." The admiral added, "He wants to do the right thing for Pakistan. But he is in a very tough spot."
The implications are clear. Washington is prepared to back the imposition of another military dictatorship in Pakistan should it conclude that the present civilian government is proving an unacceptable impediment to its escalating military intervention in the region.
According to unnamed US and Pakistani security officials cited by major wire services, the target of the attack was a "training center" run by a local Taliban commander, and the victims, whose bodies local villagers dug from the rubble, were "mostly militants."
At least 50 others were wounded in the attacks, which involved four or five missiles that struck a residential building. It was the second such missile attack in the Kurram tribal region in less than a month. An attack on February 16 killed 31 people.
The attacks are part of a major escalation of the US military intervention in both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan as part of the Obama administration's emerging strategy for the region.
The administration is expected to formally unveil this strategy as early as next week. According to Pentagon and White House officials who spoke to the Associated Press, the plan will place particular emphasis on Pakistan, demanding that it take greater military action to suppress anti-US occupation forces in the tribal areas.
Even before the issuing of the report, Obama has ordered an additional 17,000 US troops into Afghanistan in response to a growing insurgency that has deprived the occupation forces and the US-backed regime of President Hamid Karzai of control over roughly three-quarters of the country. This is the first installment on an escalation that is expected to double the number of US troops in the country to 60,000.
The inevitable result of such a buildup of US military forces will be a dramatic increase in the deaths of Afghan civilians, which already rose 40 percent in 2008 over the previous year.
On Thursday, US Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus and Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, delivered a closed-door briefing to leading members of the US Senate in what was apparently part of the preparation for the public presentation of the new strategy for waging the war that was first launched by the administration of George W. Bush nearly seven and a half years ago.
In an appearance on PBS Television's "Charlie Rose Show," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the strategy review would focus on "the safe haven in Pakistan, making sure that Afghanistan doesn't provide a capability in the long run or an environment in which Al Qaeda could return or the Taliban could return."
The Associated Press quoted an administration official as saying that "one thrust was that Pakistan needed to recognize that combating extremism was in its own interest as well as that of US and NATO fighting forces across Afghanistan."
A similar note was sounded by the top civilian leader of NATO Friday. Speaking in Warsaw, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stressed the daunting challenge posed by the growing insurgency to the US-led NATO occupation forces. "We cannot make it all by ourselves," he said.
He insisted that Pakistan had to do more to suppress resistance in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the mountainous Pakistani-Afghan border.
"For that we need Pakistan because the same people who want to destabilize the FATA in Pakistan are the guys who are coming over the border and making life for Polish and Dutch and Canadian and Danes and Americans miserable in Afghanistan," he said.
Within Afghanistan itself, Obama and other administration officials have floated the idea that Washington will try to bribe sections of the insurgency into collaborating with the occupation along the lines of the strategy employed in Iraq to win over Sunni militia elements who were paid by the US military. US officials have spoken of opening up talks with elements of the Taliban.
Taliban representatives have responded that they have no interest in any talks until all foreign forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan.
The British daily Telegraph, citing US official sources, reported that the proposal for such talks is linked to plans to dramatically escalate military violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The newspaper reported: "...officials consulted on the plans said the military conflict would be raised to new levels of intensity before talks could begin. ‘There will be talks but the Taliban are going to experience a lot of pain first, on both sides of the border,' said one senior Western diplomat."
Both the Afghan and Pakistani governments have repeatedly complained that US air attacks and the civilian casualties they inflict in both countries have only served to increase support for the anti-occupation insurgencies while destabilizing the political situation in Pakistan. There are ample indications, however, that such protests from the Pakistani government are for public consumption, aimed at assuaging popular anger over the air strikes while the Pakistani state provides direct support for these attacks, including allowing the US to launch its drones from a base located inside Pakistan.
The latest missile attack is particularly provocative, given the escalating political crisis in Pakistan. Washington is signaling all sides that it will act with impunity in carrying out military actions on Pakistani soil while demanding that domestic political conflicts be subordinated to the US "war on terror."
US officials have intervened aggressively in a bid to force an end to the showdown between President Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and his political rival Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML).
Obama's special envoy Holbrooke, the US Ambassador in Islamabad Anne Patterson and British Foreign Secretary David Milliband held conference calls and meetings with Zardari and Sharif demanding a speedy resolution of the power struggle between the two bourgeois parties for fear that its continuation could lead to the government's collapse.
According to the Pakistani daily Dawn: "Representatives of the US and the UK governments told President Zardari that political instability in Pakistan weakens their efforts on the war on terror and thus political unrest should be overcome, otherwise it will help militants to reorganise and emerge with more force to meet their agenda. The US and the UK leaders were of the view that political mayhem in Pakistan is creating a vacuum in the country leaving the militants unchecked."
In particular, Washington and London are anxious to reach some kind of power-sharing settlement between the two parties before the scheduled March 16 arrival in Islamabad of a "Long March" organized by Pakistani lawyers and supported by the PML. It is feared that the march, called to demand the reinstatement of judges who were removed from the bench under a 2007 emergency rule decreed by former military strongman Gen. Pervez Musharraf, could produce violent confrontations.
Already, security forces have arrested at least 1,000 lawyers and politicians, while many demonstrators have been beaten. Late Thursday, security forces blockaded the main highway out of Karachi—a principal supply route for US occupation forces in Afghanistan—in an attempt to prevent protesters from leaving the city for Islamabad.
In an another repressive act, the Dubai-based Pakistani news television channel Geo News was forced off the air after cable operators were threatened by the government and told to halt their broadcasts of the channel, according to Pakistani press reports.
One year after Zardari came into office it is becoming increasingly evident that he is employing much the same methods as his predecessor, the military ruler Musharraf. As Pakistan's News International commented in its lead editorial Thursday: "Even in Pakistan's troubled history of democratic governments, it is rare to find the kind of open fascism we are seeing today." Zardari, it continued, had abandoned the "pretense of democratic practice" and reacted like "many bloodthirsty dictators."
Ultimately, the adoption of such methods is a function not merely of the political squabble between the PPP and the PML, but of the political, economic and social agenda of Pakistan's capitalist state, which is deeply unpopular with the broad masses of workers, peasants and the poor.
In an ominous development, the Indian-based news service IANS reported that the chief of the Pakistani army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, delivered Zardari an "internationally backed" 24-hour deadline to bring an end to the political crisis.
The deadline was "backed by Washington, London and the army establishment," according to the Pakistani Internet news site "A Pakistan News." The site went on to say that Zardari will "be asked to go" by the army and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani "if he does not accept a new deal hatched by them in consultation with foreign powers."
In his interview with PBS, US Admiral Mullen said the Pentagon was closely following the political confrontation in Pakistan and cited concerns that it could "possibly generate a crisis, which may cause actions to be taken on the part of the military."
Mullen praised his Pakistani counterpart, Gen. Kayani, declaring him "committed to a civilian government" and insisting that "the last thing in the world he wants to do... is take over as President Musharraf did." The admiral added, "He wants to do the right thing for Pakistan. But he is in a very tough spot."
The implications are clear. Washington is prepared to back the imposition of another military dictatorship in Pakistan should it conclude that the present civilian government is proving an unacceptable impediment to its escalating military intervention in the region.
Sonntag, 1. März 2009
The Pakistan Army and “the history of the stick”
In his book on the Pakistan Army, South Asia expert Stephen Cohen quotes a senior lieutenant-general as warning the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto against using the military to control political opposition. “If you use a stick too often, the stick will take over,” Cohen quotes the general as saying. “This has always been the history of the stick.”
There’s no sign yet of the Pakistan Army reverting to its usual role of wielding the big stick. But with the police out in force to quell protests in Punjab over a Supreme Court ruling excluding former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz from office, the obvious question to ask is whether we are about to see a repeat of the old cycle in which security forces are called out to restore order and end up taking over altogether. Indeed, the Pakistan Army’s first involvement in politics is generally dated to the 1953 imposition of martial law in Lahore – where protests erupted on Thursday over the court ruling. Sharif has blamed President Asif Ali Zardari, widower of the late Benazir Bhutto, for the ruling.
Historical parallels can, of course, be misleading. Pakistan Army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, has made it clear he wants to keep the military out of politics. He is currently visiting the United States, where the administration of President Barack Obama has repeatedly stressed its commitment to civilian democracy in Pakistan.
And Zardari, who has imposed governor’s rule in Punjab to replace an administration run by Shabaz Sharif, may yet find an accommodation with the powerful Sharif brothers over the issues that divide them — the restoration of judges sacked by former president Pervez Musharraf along with Zardari’s retention of presidential powers he inherited when Musharraf quit last year. Or we might be set for a long period of political manoeuvring between Pakistan’s bickering politicians which drags on for weeks or months.
Yet you have to wonder how well, and for how long, Kayani’s resolve to keep the army out of politics will survive if unrest in Punjab escalates. Punjab is not only the most populous province in Pakistan and heartland of popular support for the Sharif brothers - it is where the Pakistan Army has its roots. A Taliban insurgency against the Pakistan government has already spread from the country’s tribal areas on the borders with Afghanistan into its North West Frontier Province (NWFP). The Taliban have also been blamed for suicide bombings in Punjab and according to this article in the News could reach further into the province by picking up fresh recruits among the country’s poor.
Pakistan is already on edge after the government agreed a ceasefire with Taliban militants in the Swat valley in NWFP in exchange for promising to introduce sharia law. Now with this political confrontation blowing up between Zardari and the Sharif brothers, events are moving very fast.
“The two parties are going for the kill,” the Daily Times said in an editorial. “As in the past, they might both come a cropper. This time, however, there is real danger that the state they are trampling upon in the process may join the failed ranks of Somalia, Sudan, Congo and Zimbabwe.”
To return to the history of the stick, here is what Cohen quoted a Pakistani writer as saying in a book published in 1963:
“The more (the Army) wanted to stand aloof and devote its energies to the real duties of any army, the more it found itself entangled in civil tasks. Hard pressed governments were forced to call for its assistance in times of grave natural and man-made calamities, which became increasingly common in Pakistan.”
Are we heading for a repetition of history? Or do we assume all the players involved have learned from experience?
Freitag, 27. Februar 2009
Pakistani Police Confront Opposition Leader Supporters
Pakistani police have again confronted protesters angered over a Supreme Court decision banning opposition leader Nawaz Sharif and his brother from elected office.
Witnesses say police fired tear gas to disperse dozens of stone-throwing protesters Friday near the capital, Islamabad.
On Thursday, thousands of people protested in Pakistan in support of Mr. Sharif, who denounced the Supreme Court ruling. He also called for more protests at a rally near the eastern city of Lahore in Punjab province.
Smaller protests erupted in Islamabad.
Wednesday's ruling upheld the election ban on Mr. Sharif because of a prior criminal conviction related to his terms as prime minister in the 1990s. The decision also removed his brother, Shahbaz, as chief minister of Punjab province.
Late Wednesday, President Zardari compounded tensions by imposing governor's rule - direct rule by his representative - in Punjab for two months.
Following last year's general elections, Nawaz Sharif's political party joined the ruling coalition headed by President Zardari's Pakistan Peoples Party. Mr. Sharif later quit after the president refused to reinstate top judges fired by former President Pervez Musharraf.
Q+A - Crisis in Pakistan; What's happening this time?
By Zeeshan Haider and Simon Cameron-Moore
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A year after an election returned Pakistan to civilian rule the country has slid back into a political crisis, with street protests erupting in towns and cities across central Punjab province.
The timing, as usual in Pakistan, is awful.
The new U.S. administration is conducting a regional review of its strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan for defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban.
There are worries the Pakistan government is too ready to appease militants, after a peace deal worked out in a northwestern valley earlier this month.
Meantime, the economy has been propped up by the International Monetary Fund, but needs more external support.
The last thing Pakistan needs is a power struggle, so soon after former army chief Pervez Musharraf was forced to resign as president last August.
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A year after an election returned Pakistan to civilian rule the country has slid back into a political crisis, with street protests erupting in towns and cities across central Punjab province.
The timing, as usual in Pakistan, is awful.
The new U.S. administration is conducting a regional review of its strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan for defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban.
There are worries the Pakistan government is too ready to appease militants, after a peace deal worked out in a northwestern valley earlier this month.
Meantime, the economy has been propped up by the International Monetary Fund, but needs more external support.
The last thing Pakistan needs is a power struggle, so soon after former army chief Pervez Musharraf was forced to resign as president last August.
Police fire tear gas at protesters in Pakistan
ISLAMABAD: Police have fired tear gas at protesters near the Pakistani capital as political unrest extended into a third day.
Police confronted about 100 protesters on Friday as they were trying to block the main highway into the capital, Islamabad, by placing bricks and rocks on the asphalt.
Officers fired several rounds of tear gas, forcing the crowd to disperse. Police are moving toward the nearby airport to pre-empt any further trouble there.
Protests broke out on Wednesday when a court barred two key opposition leaders from elected office and President Asif Ali Zardari dissolved the government in the country's biggest province.
The political turbulence adds to problems including Islamic militancy and an economic crunch.
Police confronted about 100 protesters on Friday as they were trying to block the main highway into the capital, Islamabad, by placing bricks and rocks on the asphalt.
Officers fired several rounds of tear gas, forcing the crowd to disperse. Police are moving toward the nearby airport to pre-empt any further trouble there.
Protests broke out on Wednesday when a court barred two key opposition leaders from elected office and President Asif Ali Zardari dissolved the government in the country's biggest province.
The political turbulence adds to problems including Islamic militancy and an economic crunch.
Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2009
Indian police to charge Mumbai attacks gunman
MUMBAI (AFP) — Indian police Wednesday were due to charge Wednesday the lone surviving gunman involved in last year's devastating Mumbai attacks which rocked the country's financial hub and soured ties with Pakistan.
Pakistani national Mohammed Ajmal Amir Iman -- also known as Kasab -- was the only member of the hardline Islamist commando-type unit captured alive during the November 26-29 siege.
Some 165 people were killed and 308 injured when Iman and nine others, allegedly from the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), attacked a string of targets including luxury hotels, a crowded railway station, a cafe and a Jewish centre.
Nine of the attackers were killed, leaving Iman to face a massive charge sheet detailing a string of murders, terrorism, conspiracy, weapons and immigration violations.
If convicted Iman, 21, could face the death penalty.
"We will file the charge sheet in a city court. It is a mammoth document," Mumbai's joint commissioner of police Rakesh Maria said.
Chief public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam said the charge sheet, which was more than 5,000 pages long, contained "comprehensive evidence against the LeT."
"We have got clinching evidence that the conspiracy was hatched in Pakistan," he told AFP.
"We also know the terrorists were trained in Pakistan."
Other evidence includes security camera footage of the gunman attacking a railway station, where scores of people died.
Indian law requires that a charge sheet be filed in court against a suspect within 90 days of detention. Iman was arrested on November 28.
Two other suspected LeT members are also in custody in Mumbai, accused of providing support to the attackers.
The trial is expected to again focus attention on how the gunmen were selected, trained and armed.
Pakistan admitted for the first time this month that the Mumbai strikes were partly planned on its soil, and have acknowledged the surviving gunman is a Pakistani.
Media reports have said Iman is from the poor rural district of Okara in Punjab province.
With the filing of formal charges, the Indian judicial system will have to grapple with the question of Iman's defence in the light of a refusal by lawyers to represent him.
India's constitution provides for the right to legal aid and representation, as well as a "fair, just and equitable procedure" in court for any defendant, regardless of nationality.
But the honorary secretary of the Bombay Bar Association, M.P. Rao, told AFP in December that the unprecedented nature of the attacks meant normal rules should not apply.
"He has waged war on the country. If he's waged war, the basic requirement of giving him a fair trial doesn't really become justified," he said.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
